Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 204 (CAL)

Yugal Kishor v. Union of India

2016-02-25

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been charged rent at market rate for the petitioner’s occupation of the official quarters allotted to him at Sanctoria, though no appropriate quarters befitting the petitioner’s designation were allotted to the petitioner in his transferred place of posting in Parasea Mines were allotted during the months for which market rate of rent has been deducted from his salary. There is no dispute as to the facts. The petitioner was transferred out of Sanctoria on April 29, 2013. The petitioner was then posted to Parasea Mines on January 27, 2014. Prior to September, 2014 the petitioner was not offered any official quarters at the petitioner’s transferred places of posting. It was only in September, 2014 that the petitioner was offered a type “C” accommodation in Parasea, though the petitioner was entitled to a higher type “D” accommodation. The petitioner did not accept the inferior quarters and continued to occupy the Sanctoria quarters. It is not relevant to ascertain whether the petitioner would commute from Sanctoria to Parasea everyday or the petitioner found alternative private accommodation in Parasea. The employer, Eastern Coalfields Limited, gave the petitioner the grace period of six months from the date of allotment of the official quarters in Parasea for the petitioner to move therein, but from February, 2015 it has sought to demand rent at market rate for the petitioner occupying the Sanctoria quarters. In fact, the demand was not contemporaneously made but a subsequent demand was raised and a substantial amount was deducted from the petitioner’s salary on account of the rent at market rate for the petitioner occupying the Sanctoria quarters from February, 2015 till the middle of June, 2015. ECL has deducted an amount of Rs.1,11,810/- at the rate of about Rs.23,000/- per month. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had sought permission from the employer for the petitioner making alternative arrangements, but such requests were not considered. The employer says that, at the highest, upon the petitioner not being allotted an accommodation commensurate with the petitioner’s designation, the petitioner could have made his own arrangements by seeking release of the permissible quantum of house rent allowance. The employer points out that at no stage did the petitioner seek any house rent allowance from the employer. The employer says that, at the highest, upon the petitioner not being allotted an accommodation commensurate with the petitioner’s designation, the petitioner could have made his own arrangements by seeking release of the permissible quantum of house rent allowance. The employer points out that at no stage did the petitioner seek any house rent allowance from the employer. It is also not in dispute that since or about the middle of June, 2015 the petitioner has been allotted a type “D” accommodation in Parasea and he has shifted his family from Sanctoria to the Parasea quarters. It would be in the fitness of things that the petitioner be charged the market rate of rent for the petitioner occupying the Sanctoria quarters six months after the expiry of the allotment of an inferior accommodation in Parasea by reducing the monthly quantum by the extent of house rent allowance that the petitioner was entitled to receive. Since the petitioner had not been allotted the accommodation that the petitioner was entitled to in Parasea, the petitioner could have sought an extension of the period till when the petitioner could retain the Sanctoria quarters or the petitioner could have sought house rent allowance in lieu of any appropriate accommodation being made available by the employer. In such a situation, if the petitioner had applied for house rent allowance for the period immediately upon being allotted the inferior quarters in Parasea, the petitioner would have been obliged to release the Sanctoria accommodation and also entitled to receive the house rent allowance. Thus, if the grant of the house rent allowance in favour of the petitioner for the relevant months is considered, the petitioner will be entitled to the same beginning six months after the allotment of the inferior quarters in Parasea and commencing the month from which rent at market rate has been claimed by the employer. Accordingly, WP 29667 (W) of 2015 is disposed of by reducing the amount that has been deducted by the employer on account of market rate on rent for the Sanctoria quarters by the amount that the petitioner would have been entitled to by way of house rent allowance for the corresponding months. Accordingly, WP 29667 (W) of 2015 is disposed of by reducing the amount that has been deducted by the employer on account of market rate on rent for the Sanctoria quarters by the amount that the petitioner would have been entitled to by way of house rent allowance for the corresponding months. Since the entire amount of Rs.1,11,810/- has already been realised from the petitioner’s salary, the employer should ensure that the appropriate refund is reflected in the petitioner’s salary for the month of April, 2016 upon furnishing due calculations in support thereof to the petitioner. This order is made in consonance with the Coal India Executives’ House Rent Allowance Rules, 2010 which permits a person in the position of the petitioner to seek house rent allowance and also recognises the right of the employer to seek rent at market or penal rates upon an executive overstaying at any company accommodation. There will be no order as to costs.